MANILA JOCKEY CLUB INC., PETITIONER, VS. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO AS ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, AND BERNARDO S. REYES, RESPONDENTS.

On or about 8 August 1957 Bernardo S. Reyes filed an amended claim in the
Regional Office in Manila of the Department of Labor against the Manila Jockey
Club, Inc. for compensation under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended. In support of his claim, he averred that he was a jockey and an
employee of the petitioner; that on 31 March 1957, while riding a horse during
the race called “Novato Championship Race,” he fell and was injured; that he was
treated by the physician of the petitioner, confined in the North General
Hospital and Saint Anthony’s Hospital and examined at the Orthopedic Hospital;
that he has been disabled and is still under treatment; and that he has incurred
expenses and has suffered damages, as follows: for medicine and hospitalization,
P2,783.30, and for unearned wages or lost earnings, P13,000 (Annex A). The
petitioner controverted the respondent’s claim and denied that he was its
employee because under the provisions of section 40 of the rules on horse
racing, promulgated by the Games and Amusement Board, “a jockey is entitled, as
his sole lawful compensation, to 20% of the prize awarded to his horse which
amount shall be paid to him not by the Club, but by the horse owner.” (Annex B)
On 25 June 1958 the hearing officer rendered a decision holding that the
respondent was an employee of the petitioner. The dispositive part of the
decision provides, as follows:

Wherefore, respondent Manila Jockey Club, Inc. is hereby ordered:

1. To pay claimant Bernardo Reyes, through this Office, the sum of TWO THOUSAND
   TWO HUNDRED FORTY (P2,240.00) PESOS as compensation for the period March 31,
   1957 to June 25, 1958; and from June 26, 1958 to continue payment of P35.00
   weekly compensation to claimant until discharged from the hospital as cured of
   his ailment; provided, however, that the total compensation shall not exceed
   P4,000.00 nor the period of disability be more than 208 weeks.

2. To reimburse claimant the amount of P2,628.10 representing medical expenses
   incurred in connection with his injury;

3. To continue providing claimant with medical and hospital expenses until
   discharged from the hospital;

4. To pay this Office, the sum of P23.00 as fees pursuant to Sec. 55 of the Act
   as amended, and beginning June 26, 1958 P1.00 per P100.00 compensation to accrue
   to claimant until the full amount of P41.00 fees is paid to this Office pursuant
   to Sec. 55 of the Act (Annex C)

The petitioner filed a petition for review of the said decision by the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission. On 3 June 1959 an Associate Commissioner
rendered a decision modifying the award made by the hearing officer, as
follows:

1. To pay the claimant the total amount of P5,773.93, which should, however, be
   reduced to P4,000.00, the MAXIMUM AMOUNT allowed by law, as compensation
   pursuant to Sections 14 and 18 of the Act;

2. To reimburse to the claimant the sum of P2,602.05 as medical expenses;

3. To continue providing the claimant such medical, surgical and hospital
   expenses and supplies as the nature of the injury may require; and

4. To pay the Workmen’s Compensation Fund the sum of P41.00, pursuant to
   Section 55 of the Act and the additional amount of P5.00 as cost of this review.
   (Annex D)

The petitioner has by certiorari appealed to this Court from the decision of
the Associate Commissioner.

On 30 June 1959 the respondent filed in this Court a motion to dismiss the
petitioner’s appeal on the ground that it “is premature and untimely” because it
had not appealed the decision of the Associate Commissioner to the Commission
en banc. On 3 July 1959 the petitioner filed an objection to the
respondent’s motion, claiming that in section 49 of the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, as amended providing for the procedure to be followed at the hearing and
determination of cases under the provisions of the Act, no mention is made of a
review by the Commission en banc of a decision rendered by one of the
Commissioners before an aggrieved party could appeal to this Court. On 13 July
1959 this Court resolved to defer action on the respondent’s motion to dismiss
and the petitioners objection thereto.

In National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. Arca, G. R. No.
L-12249, 6 May 1957 (minute resolution); Madrigal Shipping Co., Inc. vs.
del Rosario, G. R. No. L-13130, 31 October 1959; and Republic of the Philippines
vs. Inciong, 107 Phil., 1024, this Court held that an aggrieved party by
the decision of a Commissioner should seek a reconsideration of the decision by
the Commission en banc,^[1] if the
decision be adverse to him, then he could appeal to this Court.^[2] An appeal brought to this Court without first
seeking the remedy referred to would be premature. It appearing that the
petitioner in the case at bar has not complied with this rule, his petition for
review of the decision of the Associate Commissioner filed in this Court,
without seeking a reconsideration of the decision by the Commission en
banc, is premature.

The appeal interposed by the petitioner is dismissed, with costs against
it.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Section 3, Rule 24, Rules of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

^[2] Section 1, Rule 25,
Id.